The Monument Issue

The Monument Issue
The article I will discuss is named Court Denies a Religion Its Monument in a Park. On February 2009 the Supreme Court passed a unanimous, but fractured decision in a case named Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The case was about a public park in Utah that refused to accept a monument that displayed the Seven Aphorisms (commandments) of an unusual religion called Summum. The park came under fire for its rejection of this monument, because of the 15 objects in display in the park there was a monument of the Ten Commandments. Also most of the objects were donated including the monument of the Ten Commandments. The park defended its decision by saying that most of the existing monuments on display are related to the city’s history or had been donated by groups with longstanding ties to it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Utah Park. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion in it he reasoned that permanent monuments in public parks are not subject to the free speech analysis that applied to speeches/ leaflets in public forums. According to the Court, monuments such as the Ten Commandants already in display were “best viewed as a form of government speech”. Justice Alito went on to say that monuments convey meaning in many ways, the meanings can also change with context or most importantly with time. In essence a monument like the Ten Commandments in display in the park can be government speech without conveying a religious message. So the park’s rejection of the Summum monument was not a violation of the church’s right to free speech. What was different about this case is that unlike most Ten Commandment cases which are litigated under the Establishment Clause this case was litigated under Free Speech Clause. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas in the concurring opinion said that the Court’s decision in this case should foreclose all challenges to the Ten Commandments monument. The significance of this case is that the Supreme Court designated a form of expression to be considered government speech and immunized from free-speech scrutiny. As I said this was a fractured decision. Justice Souter did not adopt Justice Alito’s line of reasoning, he stated that if we now consider the Ten Commandments monument as government speech it places undue burden on the city to now actively avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Justice Souter almost in support of the Summum religion advises that it is better if the government accepts other monuments to ensure safety. This is clearly an accomadationist view; the Court was less strict in enforcing the high wall between church and state and was less sympathetic to individuals seeking free exercise. In my opinion this ruling by the Supreme Court poses a danger of allowing a umbrella of protection for possible government endorsement of certain religious. It is dangerous to say that religious monuments such as the Ten Commandments which expressly advocate Christianity is a protected form of government speech, minority religions can suffer. The Supreme Court created a loophole for the government to endorse religion added to the muddled the line between church and state. What do you think? Is this ruling a threat to minority religions or a step forward to allow free expression by the government?